about BBC editorialising within news items (a habit I often notice and fail to raise consistently owing largely to time constraints). Having reported that Mr Green had been cleared of ‘inciting hatred against homosexuals’, the BBC went on to say ‘He has shown little regret for his comments when addressing the media. He has also said his comments referred to a homosexual lifestyle, rather than individuals.’
Remind me, what was the definition of ‘acquittal’ once again?
The Beeb’s rather lavish and more precise coverage of the Roman Catholic Church’s latest pronouncement concerning homosexuality is something I wrapped into a post about the BBC’s science at my own personal weblog. Please ignore my apparent plug unless this topic interests you enough to follow.
Exactly the same thought occured to me Allan – it’s one thing for Greenpeace supporters to risk their own lives, entirely another to risk the lives of those below. Not that any of the meejah reptiles broadcast anything about this danger.
Glad old Digby Jones did the right thing and left them, as it were, hoist by their own petard.
Right, let’s keep things on topic here. We have a story here about a female, Belgian, suicide terrorist. That’s a white, female terrorist who vapourised herself in Iraq (does she get the virgins too?) without killing anyone else:
IRAQ BOMBER ‘WAS BELGIAN WOMAN’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4484322.stm
what caught my eye was the statement that ‘she is reported to be the only victim of the attack.’ Victim? The only dumbass maybe but surely the perpetrator of a terrorist attack is not a victim? Ah, of course, in BBC-land …
Pete_London – in response to what you said earlier that was deleted, what you said was inappropriate – unless we took action against that sort of thing we’d risk being tarnished by association, however unfair that might be.
We aim to be a serious and significant blog on the subject of the BBC – comments like that, even if you believe what you said, have no place as part of the public record here.
Rest assured that you are not alone in needing to be more reasoned in your commenting, and that others have been and will be moderated as needed, to the best of our ability.
N.B. For the record – the presence of any comment here should NOT be taken to reflect in any way upon the views of the Biased BBC blog team or other commenters – it is not always possible for us to read and act or not act on each and every comment.
P_L Lets look on the bright side, she threw her life away for nothing, not to mention the resources and finances wasted to get her into position. We’re looking at a one-nil situation here.
The BBC will probably want to concentrate on this story because it contains a thrilling left wet dream fantasy: A white European muslim fragging herself. Now they can go into overdrive about racial profiling, “you see, anybody might be a suicide bomber/terrorist. Told you so!”
The fact its only one out of hundreds (or thousands?) doesnt matter. Even if there is never another case like it they will feel their view is vindicated. They would have liked to find a white muslim convert rioting in France recently, presumably none could be found.
Pete_London,
Yes, the spin is incredible:
….the woman’s Belgian passport was found on her body after the attack on a US military convoy. She is reported to be the only victim of the attack.
Why am I struggling to identify a perpetrator here? Whoever wrote this PC idiocy has perfected the art of saying nothing in as few words as possible so as not to offend terrorists.
Let’s try translating it into English:
….the woman’s Belgian passport was found on her body after her attack on a US military convoy. She killed only herself.
There, that’s better.
“The BBC will probably want to concentrate on this story because it contains a thrilling left wet dream fantasy: A white European muslim fragging herself. Now they can go into overdrive about racial profiling, “you see, anybody might be a suicide bomber/terrorist. Told you so!”
I think that might backfire on them as people will be forced to look for another common factor….which will place focus back on Islam itself…..
It seems only followers of Islam are “willing” to blow themselves and other people to pieces in this way…Islam IS the common factor…..
The German woman taken hostage in Iraq is a “White Muslim” as well, by the way… She married a Jordanian and converted.
I like the term “victim” for the Belgian suicide bomber who acted in the name of Islam. Let’s call all terrorists “victims” then.
How can one be “the victim” of oneself? More Orwellian word-smithing.
Susan,
Split personality maybe? Who the heck knows. I have to say that calling someone who aims to blow up others and only kills themself a victim is the most ludicrous thing I ever heard. Had she killed anyone, in this case soldiers, you can rest assured that those she killed would NOT be called victims.
Ok, on the Belgian female “terrorist” I insist on calling her, Pete asked, “Does she get the virgins, too?” That leads me to my question I must ask. Sorry if this question seems off topic or crazy but since we’re discussing people blowing themselves up here and it’s Muslims who do it, I just have to get something straight. Many of these terrorists believe they will get 72 virgins in their heaven when they blow ‘infidels’ up. We all know that the afterlife, whether you believe in one or not, is for all eternity and is supposed to last forever. Well, 72 virgins will not last forever, so what happens after that? Does the terrorist get reincarnated to blow up more ‘infidels’, get 72 more virgins and repeat, repeat? Just had to ask.
Susan,
“How can one be “the victim” of oneself?”
You can be a victim of your own stupidity, but sadly, I don’t think that is what the BBC meant about the suicide bomber.
Denise,
“Well, 72 virgins will not last forever, so what happens after that?”
That is an excellent point. Perhaps…….they get 72 virgins – but they are not allowed to have sex with them – then they would last forever. It could be a hidden clause.
Bummer. So much for paradise.
TomL,
No, supposedly they are allowed to have sex with them. I forgot where it was I read about it but they are supposed to be able to have sex in a place in paradise where even allah and the angels can’t see them or something like that. If that’s the actual belief, then it just doesn’t make sense and I’m left with the question in my post above.
” forgot where it was I read about it but they are supposed to be able to have sex in a place in paradise where even allah and the angels can’t see them or something like that.”
:-))
All sounds a bit constructed if you ask me……
Maybe you should ask these guys
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php
“Welcome to Ask-Imam.com, the online fatwa resource!”
Even the Koran says it:
[17:33] Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)
Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur’an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur’an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done “in the name of Islam.”
It should be clear, then, that “Muslim terrorist” is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a Muslim is commiting an awesome sin, and Allah is Justice personified.”
There are additional verses and parts called hadith and it is one of these that is meant to give the OK to (a) get 72 virgins and (b) redefines the meaning of ‘innocent’ to exclude Jews and anyone the Muslim scholars reckon is a bad guy namely non-Muslims.
The whole problem stems from the fact that various scholars make different interpretations and these are used to justify the actions of terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html
Can’t find anything saying suicide bombing OK though…anyone know where it might be?
The BBC report states:
“Other European extremists are known to have travelled to Iraq to fight the US-led forces,…..”
The US-led forces which are drawing these nutters are armed, and fight back, killing in all probability those who would wish to kill them. Could this be interpreted as evidence that the fly-paper theory is working?
The comments above re ‘offensiveness’ prompt the observation that the Right’s reluctance to do ‘offensive’ is one of the reasons it has steadily lost ground to the Left over recent years. If I estimate it correctly PofL’s sally against the current PM is a poor shadow of some of the abuse that has been directed against Tory politicians since the days of the Blessed Margaret often with the tacit approval of the BBC. And in other areas, Greg Dyke’s “hideously white description of the same organisation is regarded as merely a topic for debate whilst a similar and possibly equally profound observation that the Commission for Racial Equality was “hideously black2 would be likely to bring the unlucky perpertrator to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Personally, I’m all for offensiveness when ever possible because by exercising the right to offensiveness one is deflecting the attack from the next target of PC – “mildly disparaging” or in the case of Local Council witch-hunters – “not totally in agreement with…”
Anon
Very true. I often think sane Britons deserve the madness swilling around our ears simply because they constantly allow the left to get away with it, instead of doing the right thing and swatting them down rudely and swiftly. If you aren’t willing to stand up for what you believe in then you lose it. I passed the point of exasperation long ago and find more and more of my time spent on berating yet another left wing, or merely PC-obsessed fool. Maybe it’s what keeps me form really losing it. In any case though this is a private blog and the blogmeisters rightly say what goes.
I like to think that the 72 virgins tend to be more “Vicky Pollard” than “Angelina Jolie”
Anon is absolutley right. I have long suspected that most Brits are at least rather fond of a bit of Socialism (their professed love of the BBC a case in point). I am also quite sure that there exists no great “silent majority” who will one day rise up and put to right the excesses of the left.
The British richly deserve;
The BBC
Multiculturalism
Widespread Socialism
Insipid Anglican Leaders
Denatured Police and Armed Forces
and most of all, the British Richly Deserve to be rogered for the rest of time by the EU because they are too pathetic to say NO.
The Swiss have no truck with all that. (I am British)
Apparently, the 72 virgins keep revirginising every time, which is how the Shahid can indulge himself yet still have the same number of virgins.
Re: rudeness, as I recall, it was the BBC which ran a comedy program called ‘The Secret Life Of Jeffrey Archer’ or some such, featuring Prime Minister Archer in 2015 reminiscing about his life. Anyway, one of the jokes was him recalling how Lady Thatcher had lain dead for weeks undiscovered while her cats ate her. Hilarious, hey ?
So no, I don’ty think the Left has standing to complain about colourful language on the Right, and especially so when the targets really are traitors, perverts and criminals.
What do homosexual suicide bombers get?
What do homosexual suicide bombers get?
Muslim Thai ladyboys?
SiN – I agree. There is no vast ‘silent majority’ stewing in quiet fury about what has been perpetrated on Britain by the socialists.
They don’t really care. They are complicit in their own subjugation. They voted Blair in three times. They really don’t mind, except when they have to wait too long for treatment on the NHS or their car gets broken into and the police do nothing. Then they return to pliant, placid, vaguely tut-tutting mode.
Verity,
I suspect that you’re right in that the British seem particularly susceptible to the kind of jealousy that creates dodgy left wing economics, however we’ve also seen some of the more unpleasant implications of a relatively free market economic approach – hence the recent preference for a kind of wooly middle ground.
As I’ve said before, to suggest the Blair government has been ‘socialist’ is a fairly childish non analysis and is utterly wrong, in much the same way that Bush is not a ‘Nazi’ whatever some clowns might say. The BBC on the other hand does seem to have socialist leanings – hence the frequent references to ‘fairness’ which always seems to imply equality of outcome rather than opportunity.
Just to illustrate some of the ridiculous charges against Blair, the foolishness of which serve to distract attention from legitimate criticism: both NHS waiting times and petty car crime have decreased significantly since the Thatcher years. Presumably those who blamed the government then though were evil socialist traitor types?
Cockney – There is no woolly (correct spelling) middle ground in British politics today. It is all left of centre.
You write: “As I’ve said before, to suggest the Blair government has been ‘socialist’ is a fairly childish non analysis and is utterly wrong,”. I don’t think I understand this strange statement. It’s “utterly wrong” because you say it is?
Sorry, I value my own opinion far more than I value yours and I go by the evidence of my eyes. This is a redistributing government. This makes them communist and dangerous.
Cockney
The EU is an organisation with a socialist ethos and its output is financed by capitalist money which is redistributed. It is stated by some sources that 50%(some say more, some less) of our laws emanate from Brussels which greatly intrude and impact on our way of life. By allowing this to happen successive British governments have adopted a form of Socialism. I have no objection to assisting poorer countries, but I do object to them telling us how will be allowed to govern Britain
> “both NHS waiting times and petty car crime have decreased significantly”
NHS the published figures are “communist stats” i.e. don’t bet your life on them. What’s the waiting list in the private sector? Has the private sector grown or shrunk in response to MRSA’R’US published improvements despite users paying more than twice.
Car Security technology has improved tremendously, and private car-parks spend vast sums on surveilance. Are people even bothering to tell the Police (who will do nothing) about car damage any more? By what method has the Neo-Socs UK regime reduced crime?
I can’t wait for this post to move off the page. Something about that picture gives me the willies.
Oops, wrong thread.
jgm
I assume you mean the picture of the woman holding the prosthetic posterior. 🙂
Yes it gives me the ‘willies’ as well.
She reminds me of a character from the ‘Banana Splits’
Something to do with the manic grin.
The other picture doesn’t bother me – no symbolic representation can be as scary as what the BBC actually does